ORDER :- This revision application is filed by the State against acquittal of the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 2(ia)(m) read with Rule 5A punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The main ground for the acquittal stated by the learned Magistrate in Case No. 218/S/82 is that the Consent Order issued by the competent authority does not contain sufficient materials. According to Magistrate, it is only in a rhetoric form and there is no indication in the certificate that the Officer who issued the same has applied his mind. The learned Magistrate while acquitting respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1988 Cri LJ 48. 3. I heard learned Prosecutor Shri. Dinesh Adsule and counsel for the respondent. On going through the consent letter, which is Exh. A, I simply cannot differ with the Magistrate. I have no doubt in my mind that the order is lacking proper application of mind. The consent order says that Jt. Commissioner, Greater Bombay, Food and Drug Administration has considered the report of the Public Analyst and came to the conclusion that this is a fit case for prosecution. The order is lacking relevant materials as to on what point of food articles have been referred to the Public Analyst, what are the materials to be considered while issuing the order etc. Definition of Section 2(ia) of the Act will give sufficient indications about the various kinds of adulteration of food articles and it envisaged the duty of the officer to state in the order in what way the food is adulterated either in nature or substance or in quality. As indicated in Section 2 what is the opinion of the Public Analyst about these three factors of adulterations and his opinion has been considered by the Officer. Unless these materials are contained in the order, we cannot say there is a proper application of mind in giving consent under Section 2 of the Food Adulteration Act. In view of this, I fully endorse the view of the learned Magistrate that the order contained in this case lacks proper application of mind. The learned Magistrate is justified in discharging the accused on the ground of defective consent order. In view of this, I fully endorse the view of the learned Magistrate that the order contained in this case lacks proper application of mind. The learned Magistrate is justified in discharging the accused on the ground of defective consent order. In the result, Revision Application fails and it is dismissed. Application dismissed. 1998 CRI. L. J. 2117 BOMBAY HIGH COURT T. K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J. Sambhaji D. Hendre and others, Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others, Respondents. Criminal Appln. No. 3386 of 1997 Decided on : 4 -2 -1998. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegation levelled against petitioner -Absence of collateral evidence for supporting allegations - Nature of allegations disclosing only a genuine civil dispute - Court taking cognizance of case - Proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482. (Para 3-A) @page-CriLJ2118 Advocates appeared: Deepak Grime, for Petitioners; P. H. Kantharia, APP, for the State, D. K. Ghaisas, for Respondent No. 2. ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioners approach this Court for quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon, Maval, District : Pune in R. C. C. No. 145/1997. The allegation before the Magistrate was that the sale-deed came to be executed in respect of the land belonging to the 2nd Respondent in favour of the 1st Petitioner. The allegation is that he played fraud by misleading the 1st Respondent, owner of the land who got executed sale deed by means of fraud. Therefore, the Petitioner was implicated under Sections 416, 420, 423, 464, 468 etc. IPC. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and took cognizance of the case. 3-A. According to me, in the light of the allegations, it is only a matter of civil dispute. Moreover, the execution of the sale deed cannot be done between the parties without the aid of the official machinery. Therefore, the sale deed executed according to law under the supervision of authorities prescribed under the Registration Act is presumed to be legal and valid, unless and until it is declared null, void and illegal by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Unless this is done, every act of execution of the documents is to be presumed to be legal. Therefore, the sale deed executed according to law under the supervision of authorities prescribed under the Registration Act is presumed to be legal and valid, unless and until it is declared null, void and illegal by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Unless this is done, every act of execution of the documents is to be presumed to be legal. Only because the allegation made before the Magistrate, without any collateral evidence for supporting the allegations, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence. One can understand, on exceptional circumstances where on clinching materials to form a prima facie case that there might be a fraud or cheating in execution of documents, the criminal Court in entertaining such complaint. It is not the case here. Even nature of the allegations spell out a genuine civil dispute. 4. In view of this, merely on the basis of allegation of the seller, without any other collateral and supporting evidence, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence in this case. According to me, it is case of clear abuse of process of Court and it is a fit case to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash that proceeding. 5. In the result, this application is allowed. Proceedings RCC No. 145/97 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadgaon Maval, District Pune is quashed. 6. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Application allowed.